Standing Committee A

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

Clauses 85 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92 - Short title, commencement and extent

Amendment made: No. 259, in page 86, line 25, leave out 'sections 84,' and insert '— 
(a) section 84, the entries in Schedule 8 relating to the Housing Act 1985 (c.68), the Housing Act 1988 (c.50), paragraphs 51 and 59 of Schedule 27 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c.29) and paragraph 74 of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c.16) and section 91(2) (so far as relating to those entries); and
(b) sections'.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Amendment proposed: No. 270, in page 87, line 12, leave out subsection (11).—[Mr. Denham.]

Nick Hawkins: Given the importance of the amendment, I am surprised that the Minister should have moved it formally. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I cannot understand why the Government want to delete the words
''Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.''
 They are a splendid part of the Bill. Do the Government have a sinister plan to impose new charges? Why remove those helpful words under subsection (11)? Surely, such a provision should be contained in all Acts of Parliament. Naturally, we cannot ensure that all legislation does not impose charges on the public or on public funds, but the subsection is useful and something much to be encouraged, especially given that it has been printed in bold. I should be interested to hear the Minister's explanation of why it is being removed.

George Stevenson: As always, the hon. Member, being a quick-witted parliamentarian, has outwitted the Chair. I am advised that the amendment is not debatable. It is purely a technicality. The hon. Gentleman has had a chance to make his point, but I cannot allow a debate on the matter.

Boris Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Will you explain to the Committee why you and your advisers have deemed the matter to be a technicality when it seems to be of such material interest to the people of this country, who will be called on, if the provision is excised from the Bill, to pay for the intrusive measures envisaged?

George Stevenson: I am advised that all such Bills have that provision, which is designed to protect the interests of Members of the House of Commons so that Members of the other place will not be able to usurp their authority.

George Osborne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Does that mean that the removal of the provision allows Members of the House of Lords to use that authority?

George Stevenson: I am sure that the Clerk will advise me accordingly in a few moments. Hon. Members can either allow me to stand on my feet and talk until he does so—[Laughter.] Order. I am advised that the matter is a technicality. Nothing involved is debatable in the normal conduct of Committee. I shall leave it at that. I hope that hon. Members will accept that ruling.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Thank you for having recognised me. I understand what you said for the Committee's edification and to educate those of us who have not come across the provision before. However, when a provision such as subsection (11) is deleted, does the fact that that affords immunity to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Exchequer itself mean that we are avoiding discussing a pertinent and financial measure in the Bill that limits the Committee's power of scrutiny? The substance of the subsection is that the Bill will not impose a charge on the people or public funds. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that the raison d'être of the House was for Members to be voted in, extract money through taxation and deploy that money for the benefit of citizens of the United Kingdom. Is it not, therefore, important constitutionally that the deletion of a provision that affords immunity to the public purse should not be subject to detailed scrutiny by the Committee? I should be most grateful for your advice. I apologise to Committee members for having delayed the Committee, but that is an important point, and we would all benefit from your advice and wisdom.

George Stevenson: The hon. Lady is right. As I anticipated, the Clerk has found the relative procedural guidance, which I shall quote. My original ruling was not quite correct. Debate is possible, but:
''Where the Lords have inserted the privilege disclaimer as the last subsection of the last clause of a bill—
 which is exactly what we are debating— 
''the scope of debate on the amendment to remove it is confined to the question of whether the Commons should maintain their claim of financial privilege.''
 It does not include the debate that has since been pursued. It is perfectly in order for hon. Members to debate whether the Commons should maintain its claim to financial privilege, but not to debate as hon. Members have sought to debate so far. I hope that that clears matters up.

Cheryl Gillan: I am most grateful that we have taken the time for you and the Clerk to arrive at a judgment, Mr. Stevenson. It gives me great satisfaction, because it assures me that my role as a parliamentarian in this place has not been diminished.

George Stevenson: It gives the hon. Lady great satisfaction; it gave me some relief.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful for your ruling and explanation, Mr. Stevenson. I am pleased that the Clerk was able to elucidate the matter for all Members of the Committee.
 Although I did not know it, what I said referred to the Commons maintaining its privileges. Everything that I said before you ruled that we were not allowed to debate the subject was germane to that point. I therefore hope that it is proper for me to say, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, that I strongly feel that the House of Commons needs to maintain its financial privileges. I am puzzled, because I thought that subsection (11) was doing just that. I am therefore now even more concerned that the Government are seeking to take it out. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, who were trying to join me in debating the matter but were only able to do so on points of order, will want to follow that up.

Boris Johnson: I concur heartily with what my hon. Friend says. If we were sent to this place for any purpose, it was to vindicate the right of this House to determine taxes and public expenditure. It is absolutely outrageous that some 400 years after—what was his name—Charles I tried to get away with levying ship money without the scrutiny of Parliament, this pair of Ministers should try to excise from the Bill the Committee's right to scrutinise and protect the public purse. That is our fundamental purpose in being sent by the electors to the House and to this Committee Room. I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) will want to add to what I have said in a very vociferous manner.

George Stevenson: I fear that we may be getting into a rather convoluted and perhaps unimportant debate that goes back centuries. As I have mentioned, there is a provision for debate, but it is up to hon. Members to decide whether to discuss the matter, as I am advised that the amendment is a pure technicality, and that there is no problem with it. We could waste—I use the word advisedly—quite a bit of time debating it, but it has no real effect and in no way compromises the House of Commons' privileges. This is a House of Lords Bill, and as such the amendment and the disclaimer in subsection (11) are technicalities.

Cheryl Gillan: This could be one of the few times that I shall speak during the Committee, so I should like to take the opportunity to thank you and your colleagues in the Chair for your first-class chairmanship of the proceedings, Mr. Stevenson.
 The amendment may be a technicality, but it concerns money and the public purse, and some of our primary functions in this House relate to those matters. On many occasions, it is quite sufficient for a Minister to move an amendment formally and not speak to it, but I hope that the Minister will delve deep into his file and find a small explanatory note that will help to put some flesh on the bones of the amendment. If he does not, I shall be rather distressed, as I think that any amendment, technical or otherwise, to a Bill as important as this should be explained by the Government. We are not under great time pressure; we have made good progress on the Bill, and there has been much co-operation from all parties. This is an opportunity for the Minister to speak one or two sentences and enlighten the Committee. 
 Having said that, it has been a pleasure to serve on the Committee, and I hope that the Bill is a little finer for the scrutiny that you have given it, Mr. Stevenson.

George Stevenson: I am always extremely grateful to hon. Members for their kind remarks, guidance, patience and forbearance. Sitting in this Chair is sometimes a difficult job, although it is a privilege for all who do so. I also have a responsibility to ensure that the Committee's business is conducted. I accept the advice that I have been given and therefore rule that the amendment is not about money but is a procedural device to avoid the impression that the other place has authorised expenditure—something that only the House of Commons can do.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 92, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Minor and Consequential Amendments

John Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 268, page 141, line 27, at end insert—
'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
3A In section 7(2)(bb) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53) (limitations on rehabilitations under Act etc.), for ''a sex offender order under section 2 or, as the case may be, 20'' there shall be substituted ''an order under section 2, 2A or 20(4)(b)''.'

George Stevenson: With this we may discuss the following: Government new clause 17—Sex offender orders.
 Government new clause 18—Interim orders: sex offenders. 
 Government new clause 19—Sex offender orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland. 
 Government amendment No. 269.

John Denham: We come now to a substantive and important debate. This is the first time that hon. Members have had an opportunity to discuss these new clauses and amendments. Although I was tempted to dwell on the tragic events surrounding the reign of King Thingy the Wotsit who, as we all know, lost his head in unfortunate circumstances, we should move on.
 The new clauses have been introduced since the publication of the Bill primarily to deal with weaknesses in the existing legislation surrounding sex offender orders—they could not be used sufficiently flexibly or widely—and to ensure effective coverage of the United Kingdom. We have taken the opportunity to introduce a new, more flexible element into the system. A couple of additional amendments on Report will also be necessary to complete the picture. 
 As hon. Members may know, a sex offender order is a civil preventive order made by a magistrates court. If the police consider that a sex offender has acted in a way that gives cause for concern that he may re-offend, they can apply for an order. The order places prohibitions designed to prevent the offender from engaging in behaviour that may lead him to re-
 offending. For example, he may be prevented from entering children's playgrounds or visiting swimming baths. Any breach of the prohibitions carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. 
 Sex offender orders have proved to be an effective tool in managing the risks that sex offenders pose to the public. Approximately 170 orders have been granted to date, mainly against the most dangerous offenders living in the community. About half of those have been breached, with custodial sentences following in the majority of cases. 
 Some individual cases have highlighted weaknesses in the existing legislation. Such anecdotal evidence has been backed up by Home Office research on sex offender orders, which we published last week. We are taking the opportunity to legislate to increase the effectiveness of sex offender orders and so enhance the protection of the public. 
 New clause 17 seeks to give greater flexibility to the police in how they apply for and amend sex offender orders. At present, the police can apply for a sex offender order only if the offender is already in their police area. The new clause will allow police forces that know an offender is coming to their area to apply for a sex offender order in advance of his arrival. Police forces will be able to make an application to any court in their police area, rather than to a court only in the area where some of the risky behaviour took place. 
 New clause 17 extends the prohibitions that may be imposed in a sex offender order to the United Kingdom as a whole by amplifying the definition of the ''public'' to the 
''public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public''.
 Currently, orders extend only to England and Wales. The clause amends the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to allow police forces to vary or discharge orders at courts in their own police area, without having to go back to the original court that made the order. 
 New clause 18 introduces interim sex offender orders in the same way as clause 59 introduces interim antisocial behaviour orders. Interim orders would be useful in high-risk situations that require urgent intervention. The police have complained about the length of time that it takes to get a full hearing, and interim orders would address that problem. Anyone made subject to an interim order will be placed on the sex offenders' register for its duration. He will be required to notify the police of his name and address, and of any subsequent changes. That is the same requirement as with full orders, and forms an important part of the sex offender orders because the police are aware of the whereabouts of the offender. 
 New clause 19 introduces new section 2B to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That makes the breach of sex offender orders made in Scotland and Northern Ireland an offence if it occurs in England and Wales. The offence will carry the same penalty as a breach of an English order. 
 It has not been possible to table amendments to make reciprocal changes to the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland in time for the Committee. I shall 
 move amendments on Report that will mirror new clause 19 so that a breach of English orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland will be offences under their law. The Scottish Parliament is debating a Sewel motion today to allow this Parliament to legislate on its behalf. 
 The amendments, including those that will be moved on Report, will make a breach of an order an offence throughout the United Kingdom irrespective of the jurisdiction in which it was created. Amendments Nos. 268 and 269 are consequential to the three new clauses. I commend the new clauses and amendments to the Committee.

James Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for ensuring that the earlier item allowed me to return to the Committee in time to speak to the amendments and new clauses.
 The Minister rightly said that this is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss this subject during our consideration of the Bill, with the exception of the glimpse of the Government's intentions that he gave during his speech on Second Reading. I am grateful for the letter that he sent to me on 19 June with an explanation of the background to the amendments. I say from the outset that we do not have any serious worries or objections that would cause us to oppose them. Obviously, sex offender orders are extremely important and, as the Minister described, clearly operative. I think that he said that half have been breached, which illustrates their importance and value. We hope that we will reach a stage at which fewer will be breached. 
 I have one or two specific questions. I understand from the Minister's comments and letter that an order made in the future will apply throughout the UK. If that is the case, I am slightly puzzled why there is a need for some of the other amendments, such as those that relate to the court at which an application is made or to an application for an order by a chief officer from a police area different from that in which the person lives. If a person is eligible—that is not quite the right word—for an order and the chief officer of the area in which the person lives applies for one, the order will extend throughout the UK. I am sure that there is a perfectly logical explanation why the other amendments are necessary, but I should be grateful if the Minister would provide it. 
 My second point relates to police costs with regard to orders. The Minister is fully aware that there have been several cases—including one in Cambridgeshire—when sex offenders have had to be accommodated in police cells for public protection and for their own safety because the public have made so many threats against them. I am sure that no hon. Member approves of vigilantism. Sex offenders deserve protection, however despicable their original offence. However, such an action can cost substantial sums of money and use much police time. Although the amendments do not directly address the issue, I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government plan to do about it. I know that the case in Cambridgeshire is not isolated and that a similar case has occurred in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. 
 Letwin), and, I am sure, in other hon. Members' constituencies. The problem is serious; these people become undesirable to society when their presence is known, yet they have to live somewhere. That imposes significant costs. 
 I am disappointed that this group of amendments does not go further with regard to a couple of other areas where current legislation has been shown to be inadequate. The Minister referred to the registration period. The Government have cut the period for first registration to three days. However, as he said, when the subject of an order moves, that period is much longer. There is concern that that gives them what the police have described as a holiday, before they have to re-register in their new location. I wish the Minister had taken this opportunity to also reduce the period for re-registration to three days. 
 I am also disappointed that these amendments do not address what is taking place on the internet—particularly the grooming by potential sex offenders of potential victims. That is a concern to many parents who discover that their children are being groomed in this way. I should like the Minister to respond to that point. 
 I come to the related matter of internet use and paedophilia and other sex crimes. The recent case of the paedophile information exchange involved a group of criminals who were prosecuted for horrendous crimes against children using the internet. Almost everyone in that group was imprisoned, but I understand that its leader escaped prosecution because he refused to give the key to the encryption of some of the software, and the police were unable to break into parts of it. It has been suggested that the failure to provide that key, when required to do so by the police, should be an offence that is equivalent to the crime itself—which would be a bit like the refusal to say who was driving a car opening one to prosecution in the same way as does the offence of driving it. 
 I am aware that I have strayed beyond discussion of the amendments, but this is a Second Reading debate. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Stevenson. We are all very concerned about sex offences, and their apparent proliferation—although we could argue about whether such crimes really are increasing, or whether that merely seems to be the case because they are more noticeable, or commented on, or reported. However, the fact of the matter is that they take place, and there is a huge amount of public emotion about such crimes. The law needs to be tightened up. I welcome the Government's proposals, but further measures should be taken.

Norman Baker: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is right to draw attention to other areas where the law might be reviewed and improved. The Government are now committed to acting on the ''Setting the Boundaries'' report, which was the subject of considerable consultation a couple of years ago: they say that they will change the law with regard to sex offences, and I welcome that.
 The Government are acting on the encryption key aspect. I think that they are doing that in the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Is that right?

Bob Ainsworth: No.

Norman Baker: However, they are acting on it in a Bill.
 The issue that I wish to raise does not address a matter of legislation; it is about guidance to police—which I know that the Minister is very keen on—to ensure that those who commit sexual crimes are properly pursued and prosecuted. That does not always happen, because the police too frequently rely on the victim's statement, and if the victim is a vulnerable person—such as a child, or someone with a disability—they are not always able to make such a statement. The traditional response of the police to such circumstances is that no prosecution is therefore possible. That must change, because those who indulge in sexual exploitation and abuse deliberately pick victims who will not make statements to the police. Consequently, some people are getting away with horrendous crimes. I shall not go any further, but I wanted to put that serious issue on the record. Members of the Committee who have followed a particular case in the press will understand my argument. 
 As for the amendment and the proposed new clauses, I am happy to say that the Minister is right that the Bill should be so amended. They are sensible and will go some way towards improving the law. We all want the law against sex offenders to be as efficient and effective as possible. I have great pleasure in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and I will support the proposals. Given my generous response to them, I hope that the Minister will reciprocate when it comes to the new clauses that I have tabled.

Nick Hawkins: I wish to supplement what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). Like my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), I have also had a difficult constituency case. I pay a genuine tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) who, before her recent well-deserved promotion to Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, dealt with these issues. I had to see her about a difficult case in which someone had committed serious sexual offences against his children, for which he had received a substantial custodial sentence. He was imprisoned elsewhere in the country but, on his release, he was proposing to move back to the area in which his victims lived, which was near my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).
 The moves outlined in the new clauses are helpful, but they reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about the advice that we have received about the holiday period. My constituents are worried about such a gap. It has been said that the gap or holiday can be used by a 
 persistent sex offender to chase children. As a result not only of my experience a barrister some years ago, but the constituency cases that I have taken up in my 10 years plus in the House, I have tried to adopt a balanced and measured approach that is based on protecting the innocent. The very tragic cases that have received so much publicity in recent years are an acid test. The test that I would apply is whether the Government's proposals will prevent tragic cases from happening, such as that of Sarah Payne? Will they have stopped killers such as Whiting? 
 As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, we have not gone all the way, but I do not criticise the Government for that because they are proceeding by stages. There is no doubt that the measures will help, but I share my hon. Friend's slight disappointment that other steps have not been taken under the Bill. We hope that the Minister will say that the Government are still keeping matters under review and may bring forward proposals in future legislation. I hope so, because in all parliamentary Sessions there will be criminal justice or other Home Office Bills to which future measures can be attached. Like many members of the Committee, I have dealt with a difficult constituency case. Some of the Government's proposals would have helped in that instance, had they been law at the time. I am not sure whether they go far enough, however, because of what my hon. Friend said.

John Denham: I am pleased by the warm welcome that the new clauses and amendments have received from the Committee. I can understand why members of the Committee want legislation to cover other issues relating to sex offences. However, this is the Police Reform Bill and, despite the reputation of all Home Office Bills under any Government of attracting new pieces of legislation like flypaper, there is a limit to how much can be included under the guise of a Bill that seems to be about something completely different. We have taken the earliest possible opportunity to close a particular loophole in the law.
 The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked why, if the provision covers the whole of the UK, the power to make anticipatory orders and the ability to vary the orders are necessary. The circumstances envisaged by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) would answer that question—somebody who is not the subject of a sex offender order may be about to move to another part of the country. The police should not have to wait until he gets there before they can apply for an order. 
 Although orders will apply to the whole of the UK—at the moment they apply only to England and Wales—they can be specific. They may say, ''You shall not approach this particular primary school, park or swimming pool.'' It is necessary to have the ability to vary an order in another part of the country—perhaps because somebody has arrived or in anticipation of somebody arriving. 
 With regard to police costs, there have been well-publicised cases and we all recognise that there are costs. With the exception of unprecedented and major expenditure, the assumption has always been that the police grant that is made available to forces will 
 accommodate particular costs that arise. Those may relate to the type of incidents described by the hon. Gentleman or involve a particular type of crime that comes to the fore in a certain area. It is difficult to say that we could underwrite that cost. 
 Hon. Members will be aware—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell)—of the difficulties that arise whenever the state attempts to make or expand provision for sex offenders in any type of institution. There is always deep public resistance and a balance must be struck between the demand for provision and attempts made to expand it. 
 With regard to whether we are able to go further, we have reviewed the sex offender orders and we hope to deal with registration issues in a Bill on sex offenders and sex offences. That is also where we would look at issues surrounding internet grooming, on which my hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he would like to take action. Obviously, I cannot anticipate future Queen's Speeches, so I cannot give an indication of the time scale. My colleagues who are dealing with the matter hope to publish proposals in the autumn so that people can see clearly how we hope to move ahead. 
 Internet child abuse falls within the remit of the new hi-tech crime unit, on which we will be spending approximately £25 million over the next three years. On the specific case involving encryption mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, powers to tackle the criminal misuse of encryption were dealt with in part by the much-maligned Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which includes many excellent features. The commencement of the relevant part of the Act awaits work currently being undertaken on a code of practice for the use of the powers. 
 As we all know, the Bill raises sensitive issues, including the circumstances in which it is legitimate to require people to reveal their encryption systems. Determining the circumstances in which it is not legitimate requires careful differentiation. A code of practice is being devised that will enable the relevant part of the 2000 Act to commence. My understanding is that the Act goes some way towards dealing with the issue raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. 
 I hope that that has answered specific questions. The hon. Member for Lewes raised a wider issue relating to statements and the pursuit of such cases by the police when they are not able to take statements. I do not feel able to say any more than has previously been said by the Government, although I will talk to my colleagues to see whether it will be dealt with in the wider review of sex offender legislation. The hon. Gentleman understandably registered his concern about the issue with the Committee this afternoon. 
 I hope that I have touched on the points that hon. Members have raised. I am confident that the Committee will accept the new clauses. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 241, in page 143, line 6, after '35' insert 
'or (Police powers for contracted-out staff)'
 No. 242, in page 143, line 17, leave out 
'or accredited under section 35 or'
 and insert 
'under section 35 or (Police powers for contracted-out staff) or accredited under section'
 No. 260, in page 143, line 26, leave out '31(1) or 32(2)' and insert '17B, 30(1) or 31(2)'. 
 No. 261, in page 143, line 27, leave out from 'detention' to end of line 30.—[Mr. Denham.] 
 Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 8 - Repeals

Amendment made: No. 245, in page 147, line 36, at end insert— 
'Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 
 Section 54(5).' (c.33)—[Mr. Denham.]

John Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 262, in page 148, line 4, at end insert—
'Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18) 
 In section 200(1), the words ''Part IVA,'' and ''47B''.'

George Stevenson: With this it will convenient to take Government amendment No. 263 and Government new clause 16—Protected disclosures by police officers.

John Denham: The Government accepted in principle that the same level of protection provided to employees and workers by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 should be provided to police officers. We now accept that the best way to achieve that is by removing the exclusion of police officers from that Act. Accordingly, new clause 16 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that police officers in England, Wales and Scotland who are reporters of wrongdoing—whistleblowers, to use the popular jargon—have the same rights as other workers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Police officers will be treated as employees for the purpose of that Act.
 Such protections are likely to lead to a more open police service and to greater confidence in the police service. The change will allow for compensation to be paid to officers who suffer any detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure, and for claims of unfair dismissal if officers are dismissed primarily because they made a protected disclosure. 
 Police officers will be able to make a claim to an employment tribunal if they suffer detriment or dismissal by virtue of making a protected disclosure. Protected disclosures include disclosures that a criminal offence has been committed, that a person has failed to comply with a legal obligation to which he is subject or that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. It is intended that protections under the 1998 Act should be available to police officers at any stage prior to or during the disciplinary process. 
 The change will give a police officer the assurance that failing all the safeguards already in the system, he has a route to an employment tribunal. He will be able to report wrongdoing with the assurance of full protection if he is subsequently discriminated against, or if he suffers detriment for doing so. 
 The change will cause the protections provided by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to apply to police officers, seconded police officers, officers in constabularies maintained otherwise than by a police authority, and NCIS and NCS police members. The protections will extend to England, Scotland and Wales. 
 Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 are consequential amendments to schedule 8.

Nick Hawkins: We acknowledge that many police officers will welcome the protection of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—the so-called whistleblowers' protection Act—should they want to report matters of serious concern. However, I want to flag up a slight worry in order to get reassurance that the Government will not move further down the road of treating police officers as employees in other senses. In another context, the Minister rightly said this morning that police officers' terms and conditions put them much more on a par with members of the armed forces than with any other category of profession—and they are not treated as employees in other respects.
 This is simply a move to give them extra protection, and it will be welcomed. However, I flag up another warning. I do not want this to become the thin end of a very large wedge of many compensation claims, which would be a burden on police force budgets that are already very stretched. The police force has to spend a lot to deal with the compensation culture that currently exists, where civil claims are brought against police authorities, so that—as it were—the police are defending themselves against other people. Often, a lot of money is spent on that, instead of on policing. 
 It has been suggested that the Government are largely responsible for the huge explosion in the compensation culture since 1997, and that, therefore, police forces should receive extra provision from central funds to counteract the costs that are imposed on them as a result of the growth of the compensation culture. 
 This provision will not, of itself, necessarily lead to many more claims for compensation being brought by police officers against their employers—as it were. However, I want to hear what the Minister has to say, so that his comments are on the record.

Norman Baker: I can be even briefer. I warmly congratulate the Minister on bringing this forward. It is sensible, and it enhances rights that police officers should have. It has my party's full support.

John Denham: I am trying to recover from my shock at that intervention by the hon. Member for Lewes.
 I come to the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. Nobody wishes there to be 
 an explosion in the compensation culture. The hon. Gentleman is the first person who has blamed this Government for having caused that. Regrettably, there has been a rising trend in compensation claims over several years. 
 It was always the Government's intention that the existence of this legislation would lead to employers putting in place proper systems for employees who are aware of something wrong to report that, and to be confident that action will be taken. It was also the Government's intention that, by having proper systems in place, the likelihood of someone needing to use the provisions of the Bill would be minimised—rather than that there should be a lot of whistle-blowing, because that almost always occurs when someone has given up in frustration after the failure of all of their other attempts to have wrongs addressed. If we have the intended response to this, that should prevent any addition to the compensation culture, which, in a wider sense, is a worry. 
 I assure the hon. Gentleman that this does not presage a series of measures designed to reduce police officers to the level of employees. However, treating police officers as employees for the purposes of the Act is a simpler way of extending this protection to them than would be the construction of entirely separate and parallel legislation for the police service. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 263, in page 148, line 15, at end insert— 
'Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c.23) 
 Section 13.' 
 No. 264, in page 148, line 16, column 2, leave out '7' and insert '4'. 
 No. 265, in page 148, line 39, column 2, leave out '51' and insert '151'. 
 No. 246, in page 148, line 43, column 2, at end insert— 
'Section 80(2).'—[Mr. Denham.]
 Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

New clause 11 - Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant

'(1) A person has an interest in being kept properly informed about the handling of a complaint or recordable conduct matter if—
(a) it appears to the Commission or to an appropriate authority that he is a person falling within subsection (2); and
(b) that person has indicated that he consents to the provision of information to him in accordance with this section and that consent has not been withdrawn.
(2) A person falls within this subsection if—
(a) he is a relative of a person whose death is the alleged result from the conduct complained of or to which the recordable conduct matter relates;
(b) he is a relative of a person whose serious injury is the alleged result from that conduct and that person is incapable of making a complaint;
(c) he himself has suffered serious injury as the alleged result of that conduct.
(3) A person who does not fall within subsection (2) has an interest in being kept properly informed about the handling of a complaint or recordable conduct matter if—
(a) the Commission or an appropriate authority considers that he has an interest in the handling of the complaint or recordable conduct matter which is sufficient to make it appropriate for information to be provided to him in accordance with this section; and
(b) he has indicated that he consents to the provision of information to him in accordance with this section.
(4) In relation to a complaint, this section confers no rights on the complainant.
(5) A person who has an interest in being kept properly informed about the handling of a complaint or conduct matter is referred to in this section as an ''interested person''.
(6) In any case in which there is an investigation of the complaint or recordable conduct matter in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3—
(a) by the Commission, or
(b) under its management,
it shall be the duty of the Commission to provide the interested person with all such information as will keep him properly informed, while the investigation is being carried out and subsequently, of all the matters mentioned in subsection (9).
(7) In any case in which there is an investigation of the complaint or recordable conduct matter in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3—
(a) by the appropriate authority on its own behalf, or
(b) under the supervision of the Commission,
it shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to provide the interested person with all such information as will keep him properly informed, while the investigation is being carried out and subsequently, of all the matters mentioned in subsection (9).
(8) Where subsection (7) applies, it shall be the duty of the Commission to give the appropriate authority all such directions as it considers appropriate for securing that that authority complies with its duty under that subsection; and it shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to comply with any direction given to it under this subsection.
(9) The matters of which the interested person must be kept properly informed are—
(a) the progress of the investigation;
(b) any provisional findings of the person carrying out the investigation;
(c) whether any report has been submitted under paragraph 23 of Schedule 3;
(d) the action (if any) that is taken in respect of the matters dealt with in any such report; and
(e) the outcome of any such action.
(10) The duties imposed by this section on the Commission and the appropriate authority in relation to any complaint or recordable conduct matter shall be performed in such manner, and shall have effect subject to such exceptions, as may be provided for by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(11) Subsections (6) to (9) of section 19 apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.
(12) In this section ''relative'' means a person of a description prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12 - Persons authorised to take intimate samples from persons in police detention

'(1) For subsection (9) of section 62 of the 1984 Act (persons who may take intimate samples) there shall be substituted—
''(9) In the case of an intimate sample which is a dental impression, the sample may be taken from a person only by a registered dentist.
(9A) In the case of any other form of intimate sample, except in the case of a sample of urine, the sample may be taken from a person only by—
(a) a registered medical practitioner; or
(b) a registered health care professional.''
(2) In section 65 of the 1984 Act (interpretation of Part 5 of that Act), in subsection (1) after the definition of ''registered dentist'' there shall be inserted—
'''registered health care professional' means a person (other than a medical practitioner) who is—
(a) a registered nurse; or
(b) a registered member of a health care profession which is designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State;''.
(3) After that subsection, there shall be inserted—
''(1A) A health care profession is any profession mentioned in section 60(2) of the Health Act 1999 other than the profession of practising medicine and the profession of nursing. 
 (1B) An order under subsection (1) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'''.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 13 - Application of the Police (Property) Act 1897

'(1) After section 2 of the Police (Property) Act 1897 (c.30) there shall be inserted—
''2A Application to NCS
(1) This Act applies to property which has come into the possession of the National Crime Squad as it applies to property that has come into the possession of the police.
(2) In relation to property that has come into the possession of the National Crime Squad—
(a) the reference in section 1(1) to an officer of police is a reference to a member of that Squad; and
(b) references in section 2 to the property remaining in the possession of the police are references to its remaining in the possession of that Squad.
(3) The power to make regulations under section 2 has effect in relation to property that has come into the possession of the National Crime Squad as if—
(a) the relevant authority for the purposes of subsection (2A) of that section were the Service Authority for that Squad; and
(b) the reference in subsection (2A)(c) of that section to police purposes were a reference to the purposes of that Squad.'''.
(2) In section (2) of that Act (regulations), for subsection (2B) there shall be substituted—
''(2B) The relevant authority for the purposes of subsection (2A) is the police authority.'''.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause will give effect to one of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report on the Bill. The Police (Property) Act 1897 allows the police force to dispose of property that comes into its possession during the investigation of a suspected offence. Property may be 
 sold or retained for use by the police, and the proceeds of the sale go to the police authority. The new clause extends the 1897 Act to cover the National Crime Squad. In cases relating to that body, the proceeds from the sale of any property will be paid to the service authority. 
 The Home Affairs Committee also recommended that the 1897 Act be extended to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but as that is an intelligence-gathering organisation and is not involved in operational activity, property would not come into its possession. The new clause therefore does not extend the 1897 Act to NCIS.

Nick Hawkins: The new clause seems extremely sensible. As the Minister has rightly said, it arose from the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. That is a justification of the system whereby Select Committees consider specific Government Bills, and I am glad that the Minister took the recommendation on board.

Norman Baker: The new clause is sensible. That is the third time that I have said that this afternoon, so it is ''Three strikes and you're in'' for the Minister.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 16 - Protected disclosures by police officers

'(1) After section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18), there shall be inserted—
''43KA Application of this Part and related provisions to police
(1) For the purposes of—
(a) this Part,
(b) section 47B and sections 48 and 49 so far as relating to that section, and
(c) section 103A and the other provisions of Part 10 so far as relating to the right not to be unfairly dismissed in a case where the dismissal is unfair by virtue of section 103A, a person who holds, otherwise than under a contract of employment, the office of constable or an appointment as a police cadet shall be treated as an employee employed by the relevant officer under a contract of employment; and any reference to a worker being 'employed' and to his 'employer' shall be construed accordingly.
(2) In this section 'the relevant officer' means—
(a) in relation to a member of a police force or a special constable appointed for a police area, the chief officer of police;
(b) in relation to a person appointed as a police member of the NCIS, the Director General of NCIS; 
 (c) in relation to a person appointed as a police member of the NCS, the Director General of NCS;
(d) in relation to any other person holding the office of constable or an appointment as police cadet, the person who has the direction and control of the body of constables or cadets in question.''
(2) In section 200(1) of that Act (provisions which do not apply to persons engaged in police service under a contract of employment)—
(a) the words '', Part IVA'' and '', 47B'' shall be omitted;
(b) after ''sections 100'' there shall be inserted '', 103A''; and
(c) after ''section 100'' there shall be inserted ''or 103A''.
(3) Section 13 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c.23) (exclusion of police service from provisions about protected disclosures) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 17 - Sex offender orders

'(1) Section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) (sex offender orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (application for a sex offender order)—
(a) for ''in his police area'' there shall be substituted ''who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, his police area'';
(b) for ''the public'' there shall be substituted ''the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public,''.
(3) In subsection (2) (which identifies the court to which an application must be made)—
(a) for ''the magistrates' court'' there shall be substituted ''—
(a) any magistrates' court'';
(b) at the end there shall be inserted ''; or
(b) any magistrates' court whose commission area includes any part of the applicant's police area.''
(4) In subsection (4) (the prohibitions which may be imposed), for ''the public'' there shall be substituted ''the public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public,''.
(5) In subsection (6) (variation or discharge of the order)—
(a) after ''the applicant'' there shall be inserted '', any other relevant chief officer of police'';
(b) for ''the court which made a sex offender order for it'' there shall be substituted ''the appropriate court for the sex offender order''.
(6) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
''(6A) In subsection (6) above—
'the appropriate court' means—
(a) the court which made the sex offender order; or
(b) any magistrates' court whose commission area includes any part of the police area of the applicant or of any other relevant chief officer of police;
'relevant chief officer of police' means a chief officer of police who believes that the defendant is in, or is intending to come to, his police area.''
(7) In subsection (7) (discharge of orders), after ''parties'' there shall be inserted ''and subject to subsection (7A) below''.
(8) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
''(7A) Where any magistrates' court makes a sex offender order in relation to a person who is already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order is discharged by the making of the subsequent one.''
(9) In subsection (8) (offence for breach of order), for ''shall be'' there shall be substituted ''is guilty of an offence and''.
(10) Subsections (4) to (6) apply in relation to applications and orders under section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37), whether made before or after the coming into force of this section.'''.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 18 - Interim orders: sex offenders

'(1) After section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) there shall be inserted—
''2A Interim orders: sex offenders
(1) This section applies where an application for a sex offender order (''the main application'') to a magistrates' court has not been determined.
(2) The applicant may apply by complaint to the court for an interim order, pending the determination of the main application.
(3) The court may make an interim order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order if it considers that it is appropriate to do so.
(4) An interim order—
(a) shall have effect for the period specified in the order;
(b) shall (if still in force) cease to have effect on the determination of the main application.
(5) While an interim order is in force, Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c.51) shall have effect as if—
(a) the defendant were subject to the notification requirements of that Part; and
(b) in relation to him, the relevant date (within the meaning of that Part) were the date of service of the order.
(6) The applicant or the defendant may apply by complaint to the court which made the interim order for it to be varied or discharged by a further order.
(7) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything which he is prohibited from doing by an interim order, he is guilty of an offence.
(8) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (7) above shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.
(9) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (7) above, it shall not be open to the court by or before which he is convicted to make an order under subsection (1)(b) (conditional discharge) of section 12 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6) in respect of the offence.''
(2) In section 4(1) of that Act (appeals), for ''or sex offender order'' there shall be substituted '', a sex offender order or an order under section 2A above''.'.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 19 - Sex offender orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland

'After section 2A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) (which is inserted by section (Interim orders: sex offenders) above) there shall be inserted—
''2B Sex offender orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland
(1) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything in England and Wales which he is prohibited from doing there by—
(a) an order under section 20(4) below; or
(b) an order under Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/ 2839 (N.I. 20)),
he is guilty of an offence. 
 (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.
(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall not be open to the court by or before which he is convicted to make an order under subsection (1)(b) (conditional discharge) of section 12 of the Powers of Criminal Courts 
(Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6) in respect of the offence.'''.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2 - Riot damages

'The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 (s. 38) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Norman Baker.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 Like many members of the Committee, I had not heard of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 until the Yarl's Wood fire. Along with other MPs, I was horrified to learn that in the aftermath, the private company that runs Yarl's Wood had hit taxpayers with a bill of £97 million for the riots in February, lodged by a Lloyd's syndicate against Bedfordshire policy authority. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—the local MP—branded the claim ''Complete and utter nonsense'' and urged the Government to resolve the issue because it was stifling the policy on asylum. 
 It is clear that it is inappropriate that the police authority or the Government should be held responsible for a bill along the lines of that which was submitted under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. I wonder whether such an incident was in the mind of the legislators who drafted that Act more than 115 years ago. The Minister may say that other provisions may be worth keeping, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to comment on the claim to which I referred. Does he accept why hon. Members are uncomfortable with a situation in which the public is faced with a big bill as a consequence of activities that are beyond their responsibility?

John Denham: I do not blame the hon. Member for Lewes for tabling the new clause, although I shall be asking the Committee to reject it. I shall not discuss individual cases because, as yet, no claims under the Riot (Damages) Act in respect of the events of the past 12 months have been accepted by the police authorities. It would be wrong to anticipate such claims.

Nick Hawkins: On a technical point, I appreciate that the Minister is saying that no claims have been accepted, but does he acknowledge the reports in the press of claims being made under the Act?

John Denham: Yes, I am absolutely certain that that is right. My ministerial responsibility covered the disturbances in the north of England last summer more than it did the Yarl's Wood case. Claims were certainly made, but to the best of my knowledge, there has been no admission of liability in any of those cases. None the less, the issue was clearly brought to the fore by those events.
 As the Government said in another place, we are pursuing a review of the Riot (Damages) Act, and I said as much to the Home Affairs Committee in its hearings on the Police Reform Bill. We will be examining several issues as part of the review, such 
 as the pattern of claims that have been received. With the Association of British Insurers, we shall be considering the implications of appeals for insurance costs. We shall be considering the approach to the matter in Scotland, where local authorities are liable for riot damages under the Riotous Assemblies Act 1822. When we have completed the review, we shall report back. 
 It is fairly obvious that a simple repeal of the Act is not as straightforward as it might at first appear. The review is addressing some complex issues. I do not blame the hon. Member for Lewes, but the new clause does not suggest alternative arrangements for those who may be left without their home or their business as a consequence of riot or those who were unable to afford insurance cover. Issues such as that and how people will be provided for should be examined. 
 We accept that there is usually no case for public compensation for criminal damage. Historically, riots have been considered a special case. Compensation has provided a safety net for businesses and households in areas that might be most prone to public disorder. Equally, however, those are areas in which affordable insurance might be most difficult to obtain. 
 Simply trying to repeal the Act to meet one criticism of it could result in other problems that would not have been dealt with. It is right for the Government to consider such issues in the round before deciding whether there is an alternative way forward.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. To what time scale is he operating? When does he expect to reach a conclusion on the review?

John Denham: I am not in a position to be definite about that. We are anxious not to do anything that might be regarded or interpreted as prejudicing current issues and outstanding claims.
 We said when we launched the review that it was urgent. Subject to those wider considerations, I hope that we shall make good progress.

James Paice: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Lewes in tabling the new clause, because the issue has hit the headlines as a result of the case of Yarl's Wood. Despite what the Minister said to the Select Committee, its view was that the legislation should be repealed. However, I am more inclined to support the Minister's view that a straightforward repeal seems inadequate. Like a lot of legislation that has been on the statute book for more than 100 years, the legislation could do with updating and modernising—not that I necessarily believe that everything should be modernised for the sake of it.
 The Minister is right. Serious problems need to be tackled. Many of us are aware of insurance policies for which riot is an exclusion. It seems unfair on people who lose property or have property damaged as a result of riot that neither their insurers nor anyone else will pay up, even though they are entirely blameless, whereas if someone had set fire to their property for another reason, such as arson, it would have been covered. 
 The issue should be dealt with urgently. I endorse what the hon. Member for Lewes effectively implied in his intervention—for goodness' sake, hurry up. The matter needs to be dealt with before another dreadful situation such as that at Yarl's Wood. I realise that the Minister cannot comment on individual cases, but I hope that he will take on board the fact that concern about the matter is widespread and that it is time that the legislation was updated.

Nick Hawkins: In light of the Minister's response, which related to what he told the Home Affairs Committee, I looked back to confirm my memory that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) who wisely raised the matter in her role as a member of that Committee when it cross-examined the Minister. I discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire in light of the Yarl's Wood fire. I recognise that a review may be necessary and the Minister said that that is now under way. That development has happened since he gave evidence, as at the time he could not say as much as he has said today.
 I appreciate that the Minister must be cautious in what he says even today, but it would help if that review were to be urgent, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Lewes said. We should not risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It may be necessary to introduce a measure that amends the 1886 Act but does not entirely get rid of the principle. We hope that the Minister will expedite the review. We shall have other opportunities to examine its results.

Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for his comments. I can say candidly that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I did not have absolute conviction that the new clause was definitely the right road to go down, but we wanted to remind the Minister and the Committee about a serious issue that needs examining quickly.
 The Minister is right to say that all ramifications and implications must be considered. This serious issue has been raised on more than one occasion and it cannot be ignore. I hope that the Minister has received a further wake-up call today and that he will soon bring forward proposals to deal with this current problem in law. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 5 - Police pensions

'.—(1) The Police Pensions Act 1976 shall cease to have effect from 31st March 2005.
(2) By 31st March 2003, the Secretary of State shall bring forward proposals for debate in both Houses of Parliament for the introduction, by 31st March 2005, of new pension arrangements for police officers, including arrangements to—
(a) ensure that the full and ongoing costs of new arrangements are met from a pension fund established from the Consolidated Fund; and
(b) ensure funding of pension payments shall be made by each police authority for whom the officer has worked in proportion to the length of service with each respective authority.'.—[Norman Baker.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 On Second Reading, one or two hon. Members referred to the pensions issue as the unspoken time bomb. Although that was not much of a metaphor, it conveyed the feeling of many hon. Members. It is a serious issue that affects how much is spent on pensions, and whether a police authority's allocation is fair. The new clause is an attempt to address the issue. 
 Pensions are essential. Everybody is entitled to a pension on retirement. We must ensure that the payment of pensions does not unnecessarily affect the money available for front-line policing and cause a specific police authority to pay more than it should. That geographical argument applies to Sussex—my part of the world—and doubtless other police authorities. At present, the police authority from which an officer retires must pick up responsibility for his pension. It is possible, and indeed usual, for officers to work in the Metropolitan police area or in greater Manchester but to decide to spend the last years of their employment in a shire force. It is unfair that shire authorities are asked to pay such amounts when officers have not worked there for long. Such authorities pay disproportionately high amounts for pensions because officers choose to move to them before retiring. We must find an equitable way to spread the burden, which is the intention of the new clause. 
 The estimate for the national expenditure on pensions in 2000–01 was 13.26 per cent. In Sussex, the figure was 15.99 per cent, and those figures are not dissimilar for 2001–02. Consequently, Sussex is paying 2.5 per cent. over the odds due to the way in which the system currently works, while other authorities pay less than their share. 
 If we examine the overall pensions problem—it is a problem in terms of the expenditure faced by police authorities—the cost of pensions rises dramatically year on year. In 1998–99, the total national cost of pensions was £841 million. In 1999–2000 it was £898 million. The estimate for 2000–01 is £974 million and that rises to £1,056 million in 2001–02. Those increases are way above inflation, yet police authorities must absorb them. 
 In a written answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 19 March the Minister said: 
''we are also aware of the need of police authorities and chief officers for a system which brings greater clarity about pensions obligations on individual police forces. The Home Office and Treasury are reviewing the options for a revised system of funding which would bring this about.''—[Official Report, 19 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 289W.]
 It is disappointing that neither the Bill nor any Government amendments address the problem. The Bill could be used to deal with a serious issue that the Minister recognises must be dealt with. The amendment attempts to deal with the issue—by having money paid into the consolidated fund by the authority and then redistributed—and to address the geographical imbalance. In new clause 5, subsection (2)(b) it states: 
''ensure funding of pension payments shall be made by each police authority for whom the officer has worked in proportion to the length of service with each respective authority.''
 The Minister should agree with the point in principle. If he says that the new clause does not work or that he does not like the wording, we will live with that. However, I hope that he will recognise that we must have some proposals on pensions before long because the expenditure increases are getting out of hand. We also need a system that recognises the present geographical imbalance. I look forward to the Minister's comments.

Nick Hawkins: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Lewes said—everyone on the Committee and in the House is aware that the issue is major and that something must be done about it very soon. I will also listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
 Those outside the House often forget that many hon. Members have expertise in particular professional fields arising from what they did before becoming Members of Parliament. Their expertise can often be used when relevant matters are reviewed—it is not only down to experts outside the House. I mention in particular the all-party group on insurance and financial services—of which several pensions experts are members—as well as the all-party group on pensions. 
 Having been involved with those groups during my 10 years in the House, I am aware that it was as a result of initiatives taken by the all-party group on insurance and financial services that the Pool Re insurance arrangements prevented many major Japanese banks from moving from the City of London to elsewhere in Europe—they were persuaded to stay because of it. Pool Re would not have come into existence without an initiative from that group. That is only one example, and will not prolong the analogue because it would be outside the terms of our debate. 
 In the same way, the people who came up with that idea, which was tremendously helpful to the UK, should also be consulted on the question of pension provision. I hope that the Minister will ensure that, when the matter is reviewed, in addition to all the outside experts that Governments tend to consult, the all-party group will have its expertise tapped into. The group tends to examine things in a constructive rather than a party political, partisan manner, and is in the best traditions of active all-party groups in the House. I especially mention the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who has particular expertise in the area.

Annette Brooke: My police authority is also in the position of being above average—15 per cent. of total expenditure is taken up with pensions. That has accelerated over a five-year period from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent.
 I wish to raise the issue of the uncertainty that currently exists. A review is said to be underway, and we have heard that the Government are aware of the 
 problem and will do something, but meanwhile, prudent police authorities such as my own feel that they must put money aside to make provision for the escalating expenditure. For example, approximately £1 million this year was set aside into balances. We are the second lowest funded police authority, so that cuts into front-line policing. Something needs to be done sooner rather than later , and it is appropriate to bring that in with this Bill, so that next year's budgets can be set with certainty, and can concentrate on front-line policing, because we want our police authorities to be able to afford not only more police—as the Minister wishes—but, maybe, some CSOs, too.

George Osborne: I support the comments of my hon. Friends, and of Liberal Democrat Members. Police pensions are also a big problem in Cheshire—as are fire service pensions, but I do not know which Department deals with that these days.

Norman Baker: The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the fire service.

George Osborne: That does not fill me with confidence—but we will wait and see what happens.
 One of the disappointing aspects of the police reform process—this Bill, and the pay and rations negotiations with the police—is that pensions, and some of the perverse incentives for police officers that exist in their pensions system, have not been tackled in the past year. When the Home Secretary announced, after the last general election, that he was going to take on the police, and someone speaking on his behalf, at least, raised the issue of Spanish practices, pensions were often discussed. 
 In my area, as in others, many police officers take medical retirement. In Greater Manchester police, which is next door to my police area, the figure is astonishingly high—or, certainly, it has been. I want the Minister to tell us what is being done to tackle some of the perverse incentives in the pension system. The pensions time bomb, which other hon. Members have mentioned, should be tackled, as should the incentives that encourage people to take medical retirement, if they can find a general practitioner who will sign them off, or simply retire after 30 years, so that, if they joined the police service when they were 18, they retire at 48. 
 Throughout the Committee's proceedings, we have talked about the need for greater support for the police family, and all the different jobs that are done in the police service, yet many highly trained police officers with great experience retire at 48. I had a conversation with a police officer in my constituency who said that it makes sense to do that, and that there is no point in carrying on. However, there are many jobs that could be done in the police service—and, in my county, semi-retired police officers are used for duties such as checking up on gun and shotgun licences. 
 I want the Minister to tell us where we have got to in tackling some of the problems with the pension process, as this new clause gives us the opportunity to raise these issues.

John Denham: We are debating an important issue, but I cannot accept the new clause.
 On ill-health retirement, one of the gains from the past year's negotiations with the Police Federation on pay and conditions was an agreement on a new system of dealing with medical issues within the police service, which allows us a consistent approach to the way in which medical issues are dealt with, and appeals applications for early retirement, and so forth, are heard. That should help to bring about greater consistency in dealing with ill-health retirements, compared with the current situation. 
 One of the dilemmas that the Committee must accept is that the number of ill-health retirements as a proportion of the total number of retirements varies: in some forces it is less than 10 per cent. and in others it is more than 63 per cent. Those with high levels of ill-health retirement will pay a price through the pensions bill, which will not be paid by those with low levels. There would not be much popularity for a system for funding pensions that transferred the costs incurred by forces that have managed ill-health retirement badly to forces that have managed it well. That would be unfair, and a perverse incentive. 
 Whatever we do in future must not create incentives for poor management or poor human resource practices within forces. We also cannot be expected to undo, in a significant way, past practice. While we look for better ways of carrying that out, it is important not to conjure up the idea that there will be vast extra inflows of money into the system to meet the liabilities. The liabilities must be met within the system. As we said in the White Paper, we can look for a system that gives greater certainty to police authorities, but I do not want to encourage the idea that a huge, new pot of money will suddenly appear from nowhere to meet the challenge. 
 I may have slightly misunderstood what the hon. Member for Lewes meant by the first part of the new clause. I took it that he was proposing a move towards a funded—or invested—police pension scheme rather than the traditional taxpayer pay-as-you-go system that they currently have. If that were the intention, we would be talking about investing £35 billion of public money in capital for a funded scheme. That would require diverting the money from other current expenditure. Despite what is going on in the world stock market and the performance of funded schemes, however much we look over our shoulders or wish that a funded scheme had been set up in the past, to reverse history and start up such a scheme now would involve enormous expense and huge opportunity cost. 
 We are looking at ways of bringing greater certainty into the system. We considered the proposal of the hon. Member for Lewes, which would allocate to each police authority the pension liabilities that related to an officer's service during the relevant period. Because the accrual rate increases dramatically in the last decade of an officer's career, someone who moves to a different police force after 20 years of service becomes more expensive pension terms than he was in early in his career. There are similar structures in the fire service and other public sector pension schemes. 
 The hon. Gentleman's approach would add an enormous layer of bureaucracy and calculation to the system. There would be a need to track an individual's career possibly across two, three or four police forces, and calculate the pension liabilities that accrued from that period of service. The costs that would fall on the system to track such details would be prohibitive, compared with the gains or sense of fairness that might be achieved. 
 The hon. Member for Tatton drew attention to a related point about police officers at the end of their 30 years' service. He was right that the present system provides an incentive to retire—in particular, to retire and enter alternative employment, such as the private security industry or wholly unrelated work. The Bill, which I am confident will complete its passage through both Houses, provides a range of civilians with some police powers, especially investigating officers. That will open up an option for a police officer who may have done his full 30 years, but did not want to carry out the full duties of a constable. He could be re-employed by the police service and have the limited police powers of an investigating officer or some other function. I do not want to underplay the extent that that may come into force in the future. 
 Part of the PNB package—albeit one that is subject to Treasury agreement—was to pilot various ways in which officers could take some of their pension benefits but continue to work for a police force beyond 30 years. That would avoid the perverse incentive that exists at present, which is to take a full pension package and work anywhere but in the police service, because that would be seen as the least financially advantageous option. That is part of the PNB agreement, but it is currently subject to discussion with the Treasury. 
 I hope that I have responded to most of the issues that have been raised. We acknowledge the pressures on some police authorities. We want to find ways of dealing with them and other pension matters. However, it would not be right to encourage the idea that enormous new flows of money will come into the system from outside. 
 As for the question from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, we have no particular plans to consult the all-party group on insurance or financial services, although I was formerly an active member alongside the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). However, we would be delighted to receive any proposals that members of all-party groups or their advisors wanted to send us.

Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for his considered response. He explained his doubts about the new clause as drafted, which is perfectly fair. With respect, however, I have not heard much by way of alternative, other than confirmation that he recognises the problem. I had hoped to hear about his route map for dealing with the problem, if not by the means that we set out in the new clause.
 I do not accept that subsection (2)(b) of the new clause would involve what the Minister referred to as an enormous layer of bureaucracy, but there are other ways of achieving the same end. For example, it would 
 be possible for police grants to be increased or decreased for particular authorities depending on how far adrift they were from the average percentage of their expenditure paid on pensions. That would be one option. Alternatively, it could operate in the same way as business rates—an amount is collected and then redistributed on a per capita basis. There are other methods that the Minister could examine. 
 Clearly, the present system is running way ahead of inflation and is therefore affecting front-line policing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said. It is also significantly disadvantaging police authorities. Turning to Sussex, the area that I know best, Sussex police authority spends 16 per cent. of its annual budget—about £30 million a year—on pensions. I have calculated that, if Sussex paid the national average for pensions—which nobody has denied is increasing—it would save £4 million a year. It is paying an extra £4 million because of officers who have transferred down to the coast. That is a penalty that people in my part of the country should not be paying—I do not see why we should. 
 Before very long, if not this afternoon, the Government must provide a means by which more money is found, although it would not have to be the whole lot. I did not intend that the Government should suddenly find £35 billion or whatever figure the Minister mentioned, and I apologise if the new clause is badly worded and the Minister misunderstood. I imagine that the money could be found by redirecting the police authority grant or by reclaiming money from police authorities. That is what I had in mind in subsection (2)(a) of the new clause. He needs to find a way of dealing with the injustice faced by authorities such as Sussex and with the overall increase.

John Denham: I do not want to prolong the issue, but it is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. First, in terms of swings and roundabouts, if Sussex were £4 million worse off compared with the average, somebody somewhere is £4 million better off. I do not see them coming forward in a rush volunteering to cut their services by £4 million, so we have a real problem.
 Secondly, once one begins to unpick the costs of an officer, it does not stop at pensions. Unofficially, I have heard people in London say that the Metropolitan police trains officers for police forces across England and Wales. They question why the Met cannot reclaim the cost of training officers who work in the Met for five years and then go and work for 25 years somewhere else. I caution the hon. Gentleman about the idea that it would be simple to go down the road of working out the real costs of employing a police officer. Many others would like to leap into that debate.

Norman Baker: I agree with the Minister that it is not simple. There are no simple solutions. I have tried to raise issues and suggest a way forward, and the Minister has rightly replied. The idea of taking from one and giving to another is not unusual for the Government, however, it has applied to council
 funding throughout the past 10 or 20 years, on which there has been transitional rate relief—when the Government decided to re-allocate the local government funding formula, for example. It is an established practice.
 I do not wish to prolong the debate. I have raised the issues that I think are important. In conclusion, I tell the Minister that doing nothing is not an option, even though doing something might be difficult and could throw up problems. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6 - Special constables

'.—(1) The chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area who appoints special constables in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996 shall submit to the police authority for that area a draft scheme relating to the appointment, deployment and progression of such special constables.
(2) A draft scheme submitted under this section shall include the chief officer's proposals for—
(a) the recruitment, appointment, retention and progression of special constables;
(b) the arrangements for the provision of training for special constables;
(c) the arrangements for the provision of equipment for special constables;
(d) the arrangements for the making of bounty payments to such special constables and the circumstances in which special constables shall be eligible for such payments; and
(e) an estimate of the costs to the police fund kept by the police authority of the scheme as a whole and each of the elements (a) to (d) above.
(3) Before approving any such scheme, the police authority may, after consulting the chief officer, revise or amend it.
(4) The chief officer may from time to time submit draft proposals for a revised or modified scheme to the police authority for its approval.'.—[Norman Baker.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

George Stevenson: With this we may discuss the following: New clause 7—Bounty payments to special constables—
'.—(1) Special constables appointed by a chief officer of a police force in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996 shall receive an annual cash bounty based on the number of hours operationally deployed as a special constable.
(2) Police authorities shall be responsible for the arrangements for making bounty payments to special constables.
(3) Payments to special constables shall be calculated and made by the police authority which is responsible for the special constable.
(4) Payment shall be at the end of the each financial year.'.
 New clause 21—Special constables (No. 2)— 
'(1) The chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area shall take all reasonable steps to appoint special constables in accordance with section 27 of the 1996 Act (special constables) in the proportion of one special police officer for each four regular police officers serving in that force area.
(2) The chief officer shall submit to the police authority for that area a draft scheme which shall include his proposals for—
(a) the recruitment, appointment and retention of special police officers;
(b) the arrangements for the provision of training for special police officers, such arrangements being in accordance with the requirements of any code of practice issued under subsection (6);
(c) the arrangements for the provision of equipment for special police officers; and
(d) an estimate of the costs to the police fund maintained by that police authority of the scheme as a whole and each of the elements set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) above and the cost of remuneration of special police officers provided for in subsection (5) below.
(3) Before approving any such scheme the police authority may, after consulting the chief officer, revise or amend it.
(4) The chief officer may from time to time submit draft proposals for a revised or modified scheme to the police authority for its approval.
(5) After consultation with the Police Negotiating Board, the Secretary of State shall determine an amount of remuneration to be paid to special police officers and other conditions of service, provided that a special police officer may elect to serve without being remunerated.
(6) After consultation with the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales and such other persons as he thinks fit, the Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice specifying national standards for the training of special police officers and the competences which they are to acquire.'.

Norman Baker: Special constables have been the great unspoken in our debates. The Government have identified a need to get more people in uniform on the beat and onto our streets to help generally with the fight against crime. Under the Bill, they have chosen to do so by introducing CSOs and accredited community safety officers. They have also set a figure for an increased number of police officers across the country and, of course, we support that. However, unless I have missed something of dramatic importance, the Government do not have a strategy for increasing—or even stabilising—the number of special constables.
 The beauty of special constables is that they are properly trained, genuine, 100 per cent. police officers. To the public, they seem no different to an ordinary police officer; indeed, they are no different, as they have the same powers. We have every confidence in special constables and the work that they do. They are well respected by the community for voluntarily giving their time to help tackle crime in that key way. I am surprised that, given the Government's intention to get more police and people in uniform on the beat, they have not addressed how to increase, or even arrest the rapid decline in the numbers of special constables. 
 A parliamentary answer that I received—at least, I think that it was me who received it; if not, I apologise to the hon. Member who did—stated that in 1971, there were 29,992 special constables. By 1981, the figure had halved to 14,604. There was an increase in the next 10 years, and by December 1991 there were 18,072. By March 1997, two months before the Government came into power, the figure had crept up marginally to 19,874. Since then, there has been quite a dramatic fall. In September 2001, there were 12,068 special constables. That is a drop of more than 7,000, and the fewest that there have ever been. 
 I do not understand why there has been such a drop in numbers of special constables in the past four years; 
 perhaps the Minister can tell me. Perhaps they feel devalued, or think that there are insurance issues or that they are not being supported in other ways. That drop means that there are 7,000 fewer properly trained people in uniform out on the streets. That is a serious issue. In my area of Sussex, the figure has dropped from 465 special constables in 1997 to 301. That is a significant change. 
 We need to address that, both under the Bill and as part of the Government's general strategy. We must ensure that special constables are and consider themselves properly valued, and we should have a method of increasing their numbers. Whatever the arguments about CSOs and others, I am sure that if police forces across the country could get hold of lots of special constables to help them, it would take the pressure off the need for the entirely new system of CSOs and ACSOs that the Government want to bring in. 
 Special constables are one part of the police family the Minister talks about that appear to have been neglected, for reasons that are not entirely clear. New clause 6 would require each authority and force to develop a clear strategy for the employment and deployment of special constables, including how they are equipped and trained. 
 New clause 7 provides for bounty payments to be made to special constables. I do not pretend that special constables could, or should, make a living out of those because they have other duties and occupations during the week. However, such payments would be a recognition of the value that the police, the public and Members of Parliament—if we accepted the new clause—place on special constables. It would also make a difference for those on the edge who wish to contribute by being special constables but who cannot afford to do so owing to the time that they have available. Consequently, our special constable numbers might be increased. Most importantly, recognition of the valuable work done by special constables would assist recruitment. 
 Returning to new clause 6, it is important to have a system through which police authorities and forces have a coherent strategy for the use and deployment of specials. Such people should not wander in off the streets to be told, ''Thanks very much for turning up. What can you do tonight?'' They should be part of the integral strategy of how the police cover an area. That is not the case at present. If the system of specials is to be more structured, the other side of the coin is that there must be recognition of the inconvenience to which specials might be put by guaranteeing that they will turn up on a specific occasion. 
 I do not believe that the proposals would represent a new financial burden for the police, in case the Minister wishes to deploy that as an argument against them. Indeed, if we managed to attract many more special constables, we might make a saving because it would obviate the need to employ extra CSOs. We could save on public expenditure. Has the Minister considered that point? 
 I hope that the Minister will examine new clauses 6 and 7 carefully. If he does not like them, I hope that he 
 will not simply point out their deficiencies, but present his strategy for ensuring that the number of specials increases and that they are properly valued by this House and people elsewhere.

James Paice: As the hon. Member for Lewes said, new clause 21 has been tabled by Conservative Members and follows the theme of the new clause that he moved.
 The office of special constable in this country is extremely old. It can be dated back to 1285 and the statute of Winchester, which brought justices of the peace and the unpaid office of constable into existence. Soon after the formation of what became the regular police force in 1831, the Special Constables Act 1831 was passed, so there is a long-established tradition. Admittedly, special constables were brought under individual force operations only more recently, but they had been present in substantial numbers until the past decade. I shall not rehearse all the figures that the hon. Member for Lewes mentioned, but over the past five years, the number of special constables has dropped by 7,500 to 12,000, or by more than a third since the Government took office. 
 I make a comparison with the Territorial Army. I do not suggest for a moment that the organisations are equivalent, although there are similarities. Some 40,000 people are members of the Territorial Army at present, so there is a significant distinction between the numbers of people involved in two voluntary activities within the world of security and peacekeeping. 
 We can all speculate about why the fall in numbers has occurred, although that is probably not a constructive exercise. I suspect that reasons include lifestyle and the way in which specials have been deployed. Many specials have told me that they get fed up with being called in only on bank holidays or for football matches because they want to do something a bit more serious. Some forces have shown a tendency not to use specials as serious police officers. Whatever the reasons for the decline, it has happened, and there is a need to tackle the problem. 
 My concern is, perhaps, slightly more sinister than that of the hon. Member for Lewes. I get the feeling from the Government that by developing CSOs and ACSOs we can forget about special constables. That is completely the wrong way round. Special constables are much more important and should have been involved in the Government's plans to increase the police family. That was the message that my noble Friends initially advanced in the other place. I do not necessarily have in mind purely the traditional use of special constables. We need to do some radical thinking about them in a context that is perhaps more akin to the Territorials, the retained fire service, or various other possibilities. It would have been far better to go down that avenue than to establish other forms of uniformed people with much lesser powers, the subject of which has caused sore debate several times in Committee. 
 In the White Paper on which virtually the entire Bill is predicated, ''Policing a new century: a blueprint for reform'', paragraph 4.32 on page 71 states: 
''Following on from the recommendations in the Home Office funded research in 2000, these''—
 the options that the Government are considering— 
''are focusing on improvements in the management and deployment of Specials. We are also exploring the case for paying an allowance to recognise levels of commitment.''
 That is fine. It is a pretty bland statement, and we could all agree with it. However, that is many months ago. We have the Bill—we have nearly had the Bill—and still we are no further forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I tabled the amendment because we want to urge the Government to do something and to tell us what they plan to do to revitalise specials. 
 Committee members may have noticed that new clause 21 is almost identical to a provision proposed by the Police Federation, which I assume was sent to all Committee members. It is not identical. I substituted the word ''auxiliaries'' with ''special constables'' in our version, as I am not convinced that the word ''auxiliaries'' is the right one or even that it necessarily has a particular meaning that should be included in legislation. However, the idea of an extra force is essential. There are a couple of minor points, or criteria, at the end of the Police Federation's proposal that we have not included in ours. Nevertheless, it is substantially the same. 
 A major aspect of new clause 21 is subsection (5), which states that the Secretary of State should, after consultation with the police negotiating board, determine an amount of remuneration, which can take any form. The hon. Member for Lewes referred to the issue of a bounty. I understand that a working group report in 1996 found that there is legal discretion to pay a bounty to specials but it is effectively in abeyance. 
 I am not 100 per cent. certain that I know exactly what a bounty is. That may simply be due to my ignorance. Please do not say, ''Hear, hear.'' [Interruption.] Yes, it is slightly bigger than a Twix and smaller than a Mars bar, I think. It also conjures up visions of the wild west and people hunting renegades.

Patrick Mercer: The concept is entirely that of the Territorial Army. Territorial soldiers receive a bounty that is paid every year and relates to the efficiency of their performance. It is borrowed from that. That motivates the poor and severely slashed Territorial Army to even greater efficiency.

James Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but that only serves to underline the confusion, because the bounty system for retained firefighters is totally different. Their system is about long service. That is why I am confused about what we mean when we refer to bounty. In the proposed legislation, we have used the word remuneration, to cover all possible aspects.

Norman Baker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to our new clause 7(1). It says that special constables
''shall receive an annual cash bounty based on the number of hours operationally deployed as a special constable.''
 Therefore, we are tying that directly to service.

James Paice: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. My comments about bounty were not intended to be a criticism of him, particularly. In my opinion, if what someone is being paid is based on the number of hours that they serve, that is called pay. I do not see why that should be called bounty. It is straightforward payment, as far as I am concerned—a wage or a salary.

Colin Challen: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that that remuneration would be above the national minimum wage?

James Paice: It all depends. It might not even be related to that. I am not addressing the issue of an hourly rate that is paid. I am simply saying that we need to thrash out a system of remuneration. If that is based on hours served, I presume that, legally, it must be above the minimum wage. However, it might not be related to the hours that are served. It might be related to the number of occasions when people go on duty, or it might be simply a flat retainer—a per annum retainer that is not related to how many hours have been served. There are so many possible permutations that the hon. Gentleman's point is fairly peripheral—and the minimum wage legislation is in place, in any case.
 I want to get across that we need to address the whole issue of remuneration, so that we can revitalise the special constabulary, alongside the CSOs and ACSOs, and so that it can regain its former numbers. It is unreasonable to expect that simply spending money on a recruitment exercise will redress the dramatic drop in numbers that has occurred over the past few years—although the Government have spent a lot on local and national recruitment campaigns, and I am not descrying that. We need to be more radical in our thinking about the special constabulary. That is why we have tabled this amendment. 
 The Government have consistently referred to the importance of the specials. That is referred to in the White Paper, and the Secretary of State, this Minister and other Ministers have all referred to it on the Floor of the House. They have said, ''We want as many specials as possible, and we are going to increase numbers,'' and so forth, but little is happening. 
 During the passage of this Bill, the Minister has claimed on several occasions that we need to do something now, because there will not be any legislative time available to take action on it in the future. Therefore, everything that the Minister is considering—the proposals that are in the White Paper that I have referred to, and the suggestions that I and the hon. Member for Lewes have put forward—must come to fruition. I do not know whether primary legislation will be required, but I am worried about the Minister's claim that things must come to fruition in this Bill or in regulations. If 
 primary legislation is needed to revitalise the special constabulary, it might take a considerable time before there is a vehicle that the Minister can use to do that. 
 I hope that the Minister can satisfy my considerable concerns. If he cannot do that, the Committee must think carefully about whether this Bill should include something to create the drive that will increase numbers in the special constabulary.

Colin Challen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again just before his concluding remarks. On the issue of numbers, his new clause refers to one special for each four constables, which by March of next year would lead to 32,500 specials. Is that realistic, and is it not rather prescriptive for chief constables to be expected to reach that level? Is it not just setting them up to fail?

James Paice: As the hon. Member for Lewes said, 30 years ago there were 29,500 specials, so we have almost been there. The purpose of including a figure is not only because it is the Police Federation's proposal, but to provide a target. Should somebody come forward with an alternative, I would be happy to consider it, but it is essential to have a target. Bearing in mind that we have almost been there in the past, it is not unachievable. There are 40,000 Territorial Army soldiers, so such things are achievable. The most important thing is that the Government's mind is concentrated on dealing with the issue.

George Osborne: I very much agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. When everyone is calling for more police on the streets, greater visibility in policing and the gap between the police and the community to be reduced, it is strange that the Government have not initiated a serious debate on how we increase the number of specials.
 The figures given by the hon. Member for Lewes are striking. The long-term decline in the number of specials has sharply accelerated in the past five years and, by my reckoning, is down by more than a third since 1997. I have heard no good reason for that dramatic fall. It may be due to a change in the pattern of people's behaviour—in the changing way in which people take part in voluntary activity and so forth. If so, that is all the more reason to consider some form of payment—if that is what it takes to recruit specials. 
 Specials have many advantages over the CSOs that we have spent hours debating in this Committee. Although the Government's aspiration for revitalising or increasing the number of specials is mentioned in the White Paper, it is clear that nothing like the amount of time, imagination and energy has gone into that idea that has gone into creating CSOs. 
 I remind the Committee that, unlike CSOs, specials have all the police powers, so there is no need for the endless debate that we had about what type of powers to give them. They wear the same uniform as police, have similar training and are subject to the same complaints and disciplinary procedures. They are publicly accountable. They fit into the day-to-day work of the police in the best police forces, although I accept that some forces are not so good at using them.

John MacDougall: The suggestion is that the loss of special constables has happened overnight and is not regressive. That is mistaken. The loss of special constables has not taken place in the past four or five years. The proposals do not stop chief constables from employing staff in whatever way they think best. Does the hon. Gentleman think that chief constables would not make that judgment?

George Osborne: I am guessing, but there are a couple of reasons for the sharp decline in the number of specials. The first is the changing way in which people do voluntary work. All voluntary organisations, such as churches, charities and, dare I say, political parties, find it increasingly difficult to attract volunteers—although some parties may find it more difficult than others. Secondly, policing appears to have become more difficult in recent years—there is more bureaucracy and it is more litigious, and so forth. People are put off going onto the street as volunteers.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would be interested in hearing the Minister's response. Would he agree that a factor may also be the increase in recruitment? Specials have traditionally been seen as an avenue into the police and the 250 extra policemen in the South Wales force may well have come from the specials.

George Osborne: That is probably unlikely. First, for most of the past five years there has been a fall in the number of police, although the number has gone up now. The number of regular police officers, and specials, has been falling. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to hear the Minister, not least because his new clause is next. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) that chief constables can already come up with forms of payment, but as the Bill is all about central prescription, I am asking the Home Office if there is a national drive behind the national plans, three-year strategies and so on, which might make it work? I am extremely attracted to the idea of an auxiliary force of the size mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer)—I take note of his comments on the term ''auxiliary''—of 25 per cent. of the regular force, which would do a tremendous amount to increase public confidence in the police service. It would address our constituents' fears about the visibility of policing on the street, bobbies on the beat, and so on. There is a complete lack of imagination or thinking from the Government about how to use the specials, in contrast to the imagination and thinking that has gone into creating the CSOs.

Patrick Mercer: I am glad to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. One or two sensible points were also made by Opposition Members.
 I have spent some time with constables, as have other hon. Members, and the reasons numbers have been dropping are manifold and varied. First, the regular force recruits from the special force. I have no difficulty with that as it is extremely helpful and sensible, but the problem comes in topping up the loss of those who go on to serve with the regular force. 
 Secondly, as the hon. Member for Tatton said, specials' duties are becoming mundane. With the regular force increasingly under pressure, there is a tendency, even among the most enlightened regular officers, to try to use the specials to do the less attractive, more tedious tasks. 
 Thirdly, on the other side of the coin, every member of the Committee knows that the problem of police numbers is aired at town council, parish council, district council and other meetings. In my constituency, which is more rural than many, every audience that I address, or that addresses me, brings that point up, to which I say, ''How many of you will volunteer to be special constables?'' Not a single hand goes up. I ask, ''How many of you are retained firemen?'' A few hands go up. When I ask, ''How many of you are Territorial Army soldiers?'' even fewer hands go up. The simple reason is that there is no remuneration to offset the difficulties of being a special constable. It is as blunt as that. The cons outweigh the pros of the service. 
 The regular force regards its special constables very highly. It uses them thoroughly proficiently, for front-line duties, and it likes having specials around. Before I go any further, I beg the Government not, on any account, to use the word ''auxiliary'', whatever happens to the proposal. The Northern Ireland police force would recoil very hard indeed should that term come anywhere near them and I ask the Government to think carefully about it. [Hon. Members: ''A B-special''.] Or even a Black and Tan. 
 The main point is that the regular policeman is entirely happy with the special constables; he understands them and he knows and understands the parameters within which they work. He understands their training, their uniform, their badges and their powers. To the regular officer, the special constable is a completely understood creature. Minds are not closed to CSOs or ACSOs, certainly not in the constabulary of Nottinghamshire, but special constables already exist and are thoroughly accepted. I beg the Minister to think carefully about their future use. I sincerely applaud the efforts that have already been made to recruit them, but I echo comments from all hon. Members about the energy and thought that need to be given to producing extra measures to provide more special constables. If we can afford a Territorial Army and a retained fire service, surely we can afford a special constabulary, even at the expense of CSOs or ACSOs. 
 I would encourage the Minister to avoid the moribund thinking that goes into recruiting for the armed services, which has turned it into such a difficult problem to solve. With a little thought, energy and redirection of funds, this problem can be solved much more clearly, quickly and effectively than by increasing the numbers of CSOs or ACSOs.

John Denham: I shall reply as briefly as I can, as I am aware that my hon. Friends have been waiting for six weeks for the opportunity to speak in the last few minutes. This is a crucial debate. We will not ask the Committee to accept the motion and the new clause.
 However, I will set out what we are doing about recruiting specials, and how we will take the spirit of the new clause to ensure that every police authority is required to address the local strategy for the recruitment and retention of specials. There is no contradiction between having CSOs and specials, and it is right to say that we must invest considerable energy into reversing the decline in the special constabulary and into expanding it, as we will in other areas of police reform.
 As hon. Members have rightly said, there are many reasons for the decline in police numbers. Undoubtedly, specials have been heavily recruited into the regular force, especially in the past two years, not least because over the long period when police numbers were declining, people who were keen on becoming police officers were often directed into the specials to get some experience. None the less, we need to improve the recruitment, management, deployment and welfare of specials. In recent weeks, we set out a new headline role for specials that emphasises their role in intelligence-led patrolling and crime-reduction initiatives. Last week, I had the privilege of presenting the Ferrers trophy. I was interested to see how many of the specials who were nominated had been enormously effective in dealing with youth nuisance problems in local communities. I am pleased by what the hon. Member for Newark said and how he promotes that initiative locally. We need to develop it as part of the community solution to such problems. 
 Last month, we issued a new foundation training package for specials, and are working on revised conditions of service regulations. A crucial area is liaison with employers, on which I agree that we have only just started work. As an employer, there can be little better than using the public purse to train an employee in the skills of a special constable. They will exercise those skills in their own time, but will inevitably bring them to work. We have completely undersold that aspect. 
 Last week, we briefly discussed the Connex initiative in supporting specials, and we need to explore more such initiatives. If an employee is in the Territorial Army, the employer will be invited to award ceremonies, given certificates to hang on the boardroom wall, or perhaps be invited to drive a tank round Salisbury plain. If an employee is a special constable, no one takes any notice of the employer. We need to address the question of employer support with the CBI and other organisations. 
 We also want to get more drive into those parts of the police service that are already keen to expand the use of specials. We have provided money to work with 10 police forces who want to champion the reversal of the trend in specials and to determine the best practice. We have also provided money for people to employ co-ordinators for their local work. I am delighted that ACC Peter Fahy from Surrey police has agreed to be the person with whom I will work closely. He will liaise between the Home Office and those police forces. We hope that that will demonstrate on the ground what can be done to increase the number of specials. 
 There has been quite a bit of debate about payment. We are in no doubt that the specials should remain 
 essentially a voluntary force. There is a debate about whether some payment or bounty should be made available. There are regulations that would enable police authorities to do that at the moment. Later this year my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary will publish a joint discussion paper on fiscal and other changes that can be made to promote community service, including service as a special constable. 
 Hon. Members will understand that at present many of the types of payment that could be made could fall foul of tax and other regimes, which would make them unattractive. I recently had discussions with a senior Member of the House whose local town and parish councils wish to support the specials. We are in discussions about whether local schemes could be piloted, whether through individual remuneration or the provision of equipment such as a car to be used by the specials on their duties. We want to explore many things as part of working with the 10 forces that we want to champion for recruitment. 
 How do we get police authorities and forces to look at this on a regular basis? The best way would be to have a strong statement about specials in the national policing plan, which, in line with our earlier discussion, would require local policing plans to set out that they intend to address the matter at local level. It would achieve much of the spirit, if not the letter, of the new clauses. I will not go into detail about what is wrong with them, but they could lead to a fragmentation of approaches to the use of specials across different police forces and we need a consistent national drive. I hope that I have replied to the new clauses in the spirit in which they were moved. We must get behind the expansion of specials. We must not let it drop off the police reform agenda. I hope that I have reassured the Committee that I take the matter very seriously.

Norman Baker: The Minister's comments are reassuring. It is the first time that we have heard unequivocally from a Minister of the Government's full support for specials, which some of us were beginning to doubt. I do not say that in a churlish way. I tabled the new clause to test the Minister's opinion and he has given satisfactory answers. He did not quite say that he thought it was okay but that the Committee should not vote for it, although at the end he chucked in one or two reasons why the Committee should not vote for it. It is the fate of Opposition Members to table amendments with which the Government agree but which they advise their hon. Friends to reject. That is the way of life. The Minister has put on the record his strong support for specials and the steps he intends to take. It seems a good way to proceed. It would be churlish to try to push this matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 14 - Recovery of the cost of policing

'( )—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare a report on options for police authorities to reclaim the cost of policing—
(a) major sporting events, including Premier League football games, from the football clubs and other sporting organisations concerned, and
(b) areas in the vicinity of nightclubs and public houses, from the owners of the licensed premises concerned,
and on related issues.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the report before Parliament by 1st October 2003.'.—[Ms Prentice.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I cannot believe that it is six weeks since we tabled the new clause. This is the first time that I have moved an amendment from the Government Back Benches, so it is particularly exciting. It will be even more exciting if the Minister agrees to accept it. [Interruption.] Well, he may do so for old times' sake. 
 First, I am a football fan. I have a share in a season ticket to Glasgow Celtic. This is not an anti-football amendment. It is not just about football, but about a number of commercial activities that cost the police resources. The issue was raised with the Home Affairs Committee by the Met, although it also gave examples of other police forces having similar problems. The Met recovers about £300 for policing what it calls a low-level Chelsea game—I make no comment about the standard of games at Stamford bridge—but the cost of such a game can be up to £28,000. Clearly, the difference is paid for by the community at large. At present, police forces can only recover costs for policing within the grounds. In fairness to the premier league and others, the fact that they have increased the standard of stewardship within the grounds means that there is less policing within the grounds. In fact, some grounds can be police free or have a low level of policing. However, a great deal of policing still happens outside football grounds, in nightclubs and at other big venues where many people gather. 
 Premier clubs that are opposed to the principle of the new clause would argue that they already pay their precept. That precept covers everyday policing. I have consulted the Metropolitan police on the matter. If there were no football ground in a particular part of a borough or a town, there would be no need for extra policing on a Saturday. In London, about 500 police officers are deployed to cover football grounds on a Saturday afternoon and those police officers could be in the local high street or elsewhere dealing with criminal activities. 
 I know that the Minister is beginning to deal with the problem, but I hope that the new clause is—in the words of the hon. Member for Lewes—another wake-up call and that the police can have back some of the costs that they are having to take on board when dealing with such events. The Home Affairs Committee asked for the circular 34/2000 to be reviewed. It was put to me by officers from the premier league that the National Audit Commission looked at the matter 10 years ago and that some of the issues that it raised then need to be reviewed, too. 
 Football clubs would argue that they already invest more than £1 billion in making their grounds safer. 
 Much as we welcome that, it should not be set against the cost of policing. Football clubs should be increasing safety at their grounds; they should be improving them. In the past, I have visited grounds that have horrible facilities. I give them credit for improving the grounds, but let us not say that that is where they should stop. Football clubs would also say that they put a great deal of money into local communities to help social inclusion projects.

George Osborne: Would the new clause cover the cost of policing trains in which fans travel to and from football matches? I have often travelled on the west coast main line in trains that are full of Manchester United supporters. It is not a great experience.

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman made a good point. Deciding where policing begins and where it ends is complicated. We would not want to put all the costs on Old Trafford of sending Manchester United fans to Manchester although I can see that there would be some benefit in doing that—[Laughter.]—given the few Manchester United fans who live in Manchester.

Nick Hawkins: What about Celtic fans living in Lewisham?

Bridget Prentice: Actually, there are quite a few. There are probably more Celtic fans living in Lewisham than Manchester United fans living in Manchester.
 The clubs would say that they contribute to the local community through the after-school clubs, football schemes and so on. That is excellent. They have put some £50 million a year into such schemes. However, that is £2.5 million for each of the 20 premier league clubs, which is not enough to buy a half-decent fullback. Although we are grateful for the fact that they are being more community-responsible, that, in itself, is not enough. 
 Finally, I should like to make two points. First, what I have said should apply to not just football, but to other major commercial events. There is an inconsistency in charging, and that could be rectified if the Home Secretary ordered a report. Secondly, I agree with what the premier league says; the measures must be fair, proportional and accountable. Matters have not changed since the Taylor report on Hillsborough, and it is time that we changed them.

Norman Baker: I am always interested to hear contributions from Labour Members, both in Committee and elsewhere, particularly when they are unauthorised, as this one may well have been. We will find out. If the Minister, who has found reasons to reject every new clause and amendment tabled by Opposition Members in the debate, accepts the only Labour new clause, he will not be a popular man—[Interruption.] He will at least be a partisan man, so he might be popular in some quarters.
 With all due respect to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), I do not think that the measures will work. It is dangerous to go down the road of saying that someone who undertakes an illegal activity should be charged for it. That is what the new clause says. It is like Yarl's Wood in reverse; although I am keen not to have the police authority landed with 
 the bill, I am equally keen that we should not land external people with bills. What about the cost of policing for those who legitimately hold a demonstration? Are they to be charged for that? If a demonstration is controversial and more police are required, will the price go up? 
 What about those who export animals through ports? I am totally against live exports, but I respect the right of people to carry on their activities legitimately. The cost of policing those activities is enormous. Should those who legitimately export animals be charged? What about those who legitimately wanted to hold miners strikes? Should they have been charged for the police that were necessary? I do not think so. It is dangerous to say that people should be charged. 
 On proposed new subsection (1)(b), if those who run public houses and nightclubs do so responsibly, as I am sure most do, they cannot be held responsible for what happens when people leave their premises and go out on a public highway. The provision would be very unfair on nightclubs and public houses. I am sorry to put a dampener on the hon. Lady's proposals. It would have been nice to agree with her, especially as there are only 10 minutes to go before we pack up. Also, if my pensions proposal was a bureaucratic nightmare, to use the Minister's phrase, the provision is even more so.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am happy to support the new clause. I have only a couple of minutes, so I shall be brief.
 I have a story about a policeman in Gilfach Goch, which is in one of my valleys. It is a remote community that has suffered over the years from the withdrawal of a visible police presence. We were pleased to see the return of a community bobby there. He was welcome in the community, but two days out of five he would disappear, as if abducted from the streets. When I met him, I said how well he had been received in the community, and asked him the reasons for his disappearance. He gave one simple reason. He was being diverted from his normal duties to the policing of major events in the Millennium stadium in Cardiff and elsewhere. Such events include not only premier football matches, but pop concerts, the rugby world cup and so on. 
 I pay tribute to the Millennium stadium and other stadiums; they are a fantastic growth area in the tourism and events industry. However, there is the question of how much we should disaggregate their costs. Should there be normal policing costs, or should the South Wales police be expected to subsidise such events? I pay tribute to the Home Office, which has stepped in this year and recognised the problem in our valley communities by giving additional funds, although that is a one off as far as I know. Day by day and week by week, we are losing community bobby visibility throughout south Wales because of these events. 
 I am not a great football supporter, but I am a big fan of rock music. I support the Manic Street Preachers, the Super Furry Animals and other excellent bands that have come out of the valleys of 
 Wales. However, to what extent should we lose police presence at the top end of the valleys for the benefit of people who travel to an event and have a very enjoyable time? 
 Mention has been made of red herrings such as the miners strike. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Lewes was making. However, the issue of whether a union can be charged for policing was dealt with in the middle of the 19th century after the Taff Vale incident. We are trying to go beyond the precept and identify when events make a profit. Let us again consider the Millennium stadium. The stadium does not make profit at the moment. It hosts fantastic events and does wonders in boosting Wales' image. However, events that visit the stadium and make a profit should be able to contribute toward additional policing costs.

Annette Brooke: Would the hon. Gentleman care to extend his comments to political party conferences? I understand that whatever party is in government makes a profit on its conference. The cost of policing is enormous. Although my local authority is welcoming to all parties that visit, we really suffer as a result. The answer is to have central funding to support democracy at party conferences—

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Lady is making a long intervention. I do not think that party conferences are covered by the new clause.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I suspect that that was another red herring.
 The Minister will be able to respond and tell me whether the six-week wait that I have enjoyed in Committee has been worth it. The new clause is tiny. It would seem like nothing in the Bill, but its impact on the streets of our communities would be massive.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Members for Lewisham, East and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) might have waited six weeks to move their new clause, but I have certainly been waiting six weeks to comment on it. I shall not have much time because it is important to hear the Minister's response.
 I received a detailed briefing from my friends at the FA premier league, but I also have a constituency interest. We are talking about charging for the cost of policing outside events. Outside events have affected my constituency. I know that you, Mr. Stevenson, will rule me out of order if I mention this in more than one sentence, but Surrey police suffered hugely from the additional cost imposed on them by the previous Home Secretary's decision to keep Senator Pinochet under house arrest. We did not receive money back for that. 
 I return to the new clause. I shall not have chance to read all the sensible points that my friends at the FA premier league sent to me. They are my friends because I have worked very closely with Philip French in my capacity as a deputy chairman of the all-party sport and leisure group. In the past, I have been involved with the Minister in various sporting matters in the House. 
 I think that the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman were unwise to include the words 
''including Premier League football games''
 in the new clause. I know that the point was raised in the Select Committee, and I read the exchanges between the hon. Lady and other hon. Members with the senior leadership of the Met. The hon. Lady provoked the FA premier league into feeling singled out. We recognise that much of the crowd trouble that has been experienced over recent seasons has not been at premier league games, although I know that the new clause refers to other sporting events. 
 Let us consider the costs of policing. During the Wigan against Queens Park Rangers match on 26 February, the cost of the police within only the ground amounted to more than half the revenue raised through gate receipts. The hon. Lady did not mention something that the Select Committee concluded after the issue was raised. It said: 
''We are conscious that the ability of clubs to pay for additional policing costs may well be unrelated to the differing demands their matches put on policing in the vicinity. Such recovery of costs might bankrupt smaller clubs.''
 That is an important reason why, in the interests of sport, I hope that the Government will not accept this new clause.

John Denham: I regret to inform my hon. Friends that we will not accept the new clause—although we acknowledge the importance of the issue—primarily because, in principle, a matter such as this, which involves discussion with many different organisations, should not be curtailed by a particular timetable.
 We are concerned about the costs incurred in policing entertainment venues that are open late at night, for example, or major sporting and outdoor entertainment events. In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Lewes, I say that where someone is conducting a business activity that is creating additional policing costs, in principle, it is reasonable to seek some contribution towards them. The key question is how should that be done? 
 As I acknowledged to the Home Affairs Committee, concerns have been raised that the police service is unable to recover a fair proportion of the costs that arise from football matches. There are occasions when it is clear to any sensible person that incidents that take place outside football grounds are an integral part of the fact that a football match is being played. That is a significant issue. I do not agree with those who say that the matches and such incidents are not connected. 
 In our discussions with the football authorities we also acknowledge wider issues. The first of them, which has been referred to, is that the highest costs are not always associated with the clubs that are most able to pay them, which raises the question of how to address that. Secondly, football clubs are not merely businesses; they also play a role in the community—and that might be especially the case with regard to less successful clubs. Measures that would put them out of business would probably not serve anybody's interests. Thirdly, the football authorities claim that it is not always easy to relate the bill that they receive 
 with the level of policing that has been provided. Therefore, there are a series of issues that we must work through. 
 We must also work through issues with the entertainment industry. Once again, we have good models of voluntary schemes in several city centres, including Manchester and Sheffield, where late-night venues contribute to the cost of having additional police officers on the street. We would like there to be an extension of such schemes, and more formal arrangements might be explored. 
 My hon. Friends have raised issues that are important and complex. The Government will not ignore them. We wish to discuss them with the football authorities. I have been working closely on them with the Minister responsible for sport, and the interests of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been acknowledged. I hope that we can find a satisfactory way forward, which enables us not only to deal with the police and cost issues, but to find ways of working with the football authorities so that those clubs that attract a violent following are encouraged to deal with that more effectively. That would reduce costs in the first place, which would be valuable. Football clubs support community cohesion and youth sporting events. If we can continue to support them in their contributions to their communities, that would also be valuable. 
 However, I must resist the new clause, because it does not offer the right way forward.

Bridget Prentice: We understand the difference between the premier league and the smaller clubs, which is why the smaller clubs were left out. I accept what the Minister has said. I know that ACPO, the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the FA premier league are involved in discussions. I hope that we will get something that is consistent out of that, because this is a complex area. We do not want clubs to suffer any more than we want local communities to suffer. We hope that we will have a fair and accountable system at the end of the day. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 269, in title, line 5, after 'orders;', insert 'to amend the law relating to sex offender orders;'.—[Mr. Denham.] 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

John Denham: I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, for the way that you have conducted the Committee's proceedings, and Committee members for their contributions. I believe in parliamentary scrutiny, and this Bill is better now than it was when it was first laid before Parliament. The contributions of hon. Members of all parties, both here and in another place, have helped to achieve that.

James Paice: I wish to associate myself with the Minister's remarks—which surprised me, as he made them, although they should not have done. I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, and Miss Widdecombe, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Griffiths, for chairing our sittings, and I thank Committee members. I especially thank
 both the Ministers for the way that they have responded to our concerns. We have had differences, and we will continue to do so. We believe that the Bill is better than the original version that was presented to the other place, although, as it emerges from the Committee, there are aspects of it that have been re-inserted that we wish were not in it. That is an issue for another day and another place.
 I am grateful to you, Mr. Stevenson, and to the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Committee's proceedings.

George Stevenson: It is now 5 o'clock. Before I formally bring the proceedings to a close, I thank my co-Chairs, the Clerk, Hansard and all the staff of the House of Commons who have been so diligent in supporting and helping us in our work. Most of all I thank Committee members for their patience and forbearance.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at Five o'clock.